What political party do you prefer?

From the conversations here, it looks like all would like a more Lemming like society, but agreement can't be reached on who will be the lead Lemming.
The primary question I have is, can a form of government be created which would be satisfactory to all the governed? Can Utopia exist in a mutually inclusive form? The environment in which we exist is finite, therefore we are faced with a supply and demand problem. Though some things can be shared equally, many more can not. How might that be coped with?

 

Also, a lot of your theory seems to be based on the idea that money is the only thing that gives something value, this is empirically and historically false. You don't need to go back too far in history to see this. It's happening right now in North Korea and Zimbabwe because inflation has wrecked their currency, and it happened in eastern block countries, Kent cigarettes in Romania and Bulgaria became defacto currency for items and service

 

Money itself has minute intrinsic value. It is the items being purchased that have value, and money is what the government has created and declared to have a representative value to be used as legal tender for trade. I'd love to be able to purchase $20 gold coins each with a single $20 bill. I think it should be clear that the gold actually has intrinsic value, while the $20 bill really has very little. It's just another case of supply and demand. In the case of fiat money, supply can be unlimited if the government wishes to print more, which only diminishes its accepted value.

 

Ah, but nothing has intrinsic value. Yes even say the materials going into a coin(famous joke on how a penny actually costs more then a penny to make) has value in itself, but it's not intrinsic, it exists because supply and demand. Gold for example is a highly sought after material for it's cosmetic purposes along with its durability combined with how well it can bend and mold at the same time. Gold needs to be mined from the Earth though and isn't exactly as plentiful as coal, hence there's much value to it. This was true 2,000 years ago and gold's standard as a valuable commodity for such a length of human time has given it probably even more value. But you can check the markets every day, gold prices fall and rise just like everything else.

 

No.

Different breeds of lemmings, I guess.

 

The system closest to yours that I can think of right off is the prison system in the U.S. (Forget about the guards, they keep prisoners in, but have very little control of the population as a general rule.) The prisoners have all of their basic needs provided and no money exists within the walls. This is an isolated sub-culture.

Prisons have gangs that terrorize other prisoners and fight other gangs. Before smoking was banned, cigarettes was the currency used, now other items of value are traded for special favors and protection from the gangs and other thugs. They have created their own monetary system.

Some people just like POWER. Look at any homeowners association and you will find people running it who don't get paid, they just like telling everyone else how to live.

Compared to Windows, Apple is not profitable to hack. When everybody has Apple computers the hackers will do just as much damage.

If you tear down government, people will build another one.

You're making too many assumptions that are antithetical to human nature. Everybody is not like you.


.

 

Many things have intrinsic value. And yes, gold prices do rise and fall, based on the relevant strength perceived of the worlds fiat currencies. You might agree that never have you been able to purchase more than an ounce of gold bullion for less than an ounce of gold bullion. Fiat currencies can become absolutely worthless, while the same is not true for gold.

FYI: I believe it is HR 3956 that proposes to create a law against the melting of pennies and nickels, as well limits on the quantity that can be taken out of the country.

 

Bwa-ha, Whats a matter Jack, home-owners association don't want ya skinnin' coons in yer front yard? :smilielol5:

 

Yes I agree that they don't put unnecessary things in them cuz that would cost the companies money, but the entire concept of a battery is inefficient. The power only lasts for a little while and then goes into landfills, and isn't recyclable and most aren't rechargeable. The businesses try to make the profit margins high so they make products that will break and need replacement because then the business will gain more profit. And who is looking over these businesses that are making products non-recycleable and unresponsibly? Governments demand tax, they themselves are businesses, and they tend to be exclusive to certain opinions and not all. Neither businesses nor government support the concerns that should be covered by the everyday person.

The ones sorting out potatoes in Idaho, California, Texas, and elsewhere. The ones capable of performing bypass surgery. The ones recording your tv shows for you. The ones making the coffee for you each morning. Atm's. The list goes on. And yes you're right that we're years away from all these machines being capable of self-sustainability. I said that earlier. But do you think I should deny this belief in a resource-based economy solely because it can't be done in next few years? I'm trying to get people to understand this so that they won't completely refuse the ideology when the time slowly comes.

lol no. demand =/= what we all need.
I don't see how you can say I'm "fucking terrible at understanding economics" if you don't understand that.

Since an economy like this can't happen for a while, I think books will be used on Kindles (or media mixing gadgets kinda like enhanced iphones. whatever is the most efficient but executable). Even then, for any paper used, self-sustained farms or factories can make paper. There is even self-building technology, machines to build buildings, or intelligent designs to move a small module that blows up or inflates to be a whole building. Who makes the machines? The significant question is more like "do we have the ability and knowledge?". If out of the billions of people alone in our country existing with the knowledge of how to make machines like these, do you honestly think someone will not make a plan accepted by other people that will save the entire billions of people? To say we need an incentive is just ignorant. Plus like I said, the revolution I'm going for and the venus project is about is self-sustainability. Self-sustainability in numbers can be a great great thing.

Money fuels human greed immensely, yes. I find it hilarious that you think I'm insane for thinking that. In a system where some people are better/more productive than others, fueled as a kid with stories of success, we're all competitive to have more money than another person. Money is about who has the cash, and who has the debt. Money is not entirely all about trade. Tell me what banks trade.

People own things based on what other people and what the law says. And what you said is how money started, yes. Our money that we use is based on nothing anymore, it's fiat money. America has always had currency called "greenbacks" based on gold value until the Legal Tender Act in 1862 and got rid of that so that the central bank (which now is called the federal reserve bank) can control inflation and money supply. When you have dollar bills, you can't eat it and be nourished, you can't put it in your car for fuel, or harvest it when you put it in the ground. Money isn't based on anything anymore.

Well if you think some people should be ontop of everyone else, I think that's self-explanatory. Just no one be calling me the the authoritarian, communist, or corporatist.

um.. watering plants is not wasteful...
And you're calling my thinking unrealistic? Putting a bunch of batteries in landfills is a negative outcome. watering plants is a positive outcome. Does that really need to be explained? Favorable outcome is subjective, but to think watering plants is a unconstructive is opinion not fact. It's like calling the color orange, blue, it doesn't change the fact that it is blue.

I've taken an economy class, and I understand what you're saying but you're consistently missing significant differences in what I'm saying about the resource-based economy and what you're saying about the monetary system. I agree that the monetary system was made FOR efficiency, but it fails to provide pure efficiency because profit is a higher priority.
A resource wouldn't need to be worth an amount of another resource, there wouldn't be a need for trade when everyone has self-sustaining supplies of what they need and want. Every resource would be considered valuable and not how much one is more valuable over another because they all have their uses in providing the supplies of what people need and want.

Still finding it hilarious that you think I need economic education. Inventions don't happen because of business, they would happen regardless simply because humans want to live better. Inventions can come from any average joe, but the only inventions that happen are from the higher up people in the companies making something that will make profit. For example, Purex laundry sheets can be used as detergent into the washer and then put into the dryer as fabric softener. That could have been invented a long time ago but all businesses in the industry could have made a lot more profit if it wasn't put on the market. Even when Purex did put it in the market, it probably is expensive and Tide probably sells more for simply selling ignorant people on the pretty colors and nice logo.

Yes the system will only work when the main taskforce is/can be occupied by machines and computers. What kind of "investments" and "projects" are you talking about?

You and JackFlash are taking what I'm saying too much as a certain plan that is going to be played out. I can't tell how things will transition (besides our current market completely crashing) but I know what means we should come to.
Human psychology changes btw because human nature reflects on how we are raised and what our environment is like. I don't think you can discredit a resource-based economy idea on the basis of human psychology in a monetary system.

 

Im saying that this is true, but shouldn't be true. money is fiat money now

 

I completely agree that it is like a prison system. If everyone in this prison were given fabulous food, very clean living quarters, and tourism galore, I sure as hell wouldn't be complaining. Theres a ton more to complain about with any monetary system though. I'd rather have a prison where everyone is created equal, where prisoners provide the jail system with better ideas and they're carried out, rather than having one or a few people or even a country own the prison where they tell you what to do and where the whole place would look like crap becasue the people in power don't give a damn about the prisoners.
And if the people make a seperate currency, fine, but it doesnt take away from what self-sustainability and technologic distribution can provide. That currency system made by the people is more about reputation, and not resources like what politics plays with now.

I think that's a trait taught by competition and an excusable "moral" of being above everyone. I think that's mostly based on my opinion, but it also takes into account what I was saying in my last post about human psychology changing.

Not necessarily. I mentioned the apple firewall because it's stronger protection than a windows. And that's not just cuz of how it was technologically made, but how the company runs things which is a great example of how profit breeds inefficiency. Windows sells theyre firewall passwords and loopholes to anti-virus software companies. That way, Microsoft profits from selling more computers cuz they crash, and anti-virus companies love this cuz they can actually have business. The average joe gets the butt-end of things cuz they're paying for the anti-virus and multiple computers. Apple is MORE like the resource-based economy as windows is to the monetary system.

Human nature refers back to the human psychology reply I made that we can't discredit a resource-based economy with measurements of human nature in a monetary system.
I know everybody isn't like me. I'm trying to get people to understand these things as fundamental things that could make or break the human race and overall see politics differently. If i didn't succeed at that, I'm sorry?

 

This^^^
Including the creative input of all concerned, and you have
"Anarco-syndicalism" in a nut-shell...

...and completely do-able within a capitalist system, as a work in progress of course.
Who knows what the actual government would end up? It would still be a democratic choice.

A good first step would be to actually have a democracy in the first place.
That's not going to happen any time soon, if the recent supreme court ruling on corporate political spending is any indication.
These fucks don't live in the real world, never have, they are silver spoon mutha' fuckin' elites, they don't care about the working class or any other class but their own, and I'm afraid they are going to be with us for while...

 

Just what is thought to be the primary function and purpose of a government?
Might there be a universally acceptable and simple initial beginning from which to expand upon?

 

No, they make us do it in a special room at the community center trailer. They even have designated hooks for the heads and tails. My problem is they won't let me let my skunks run loose. Hell, they don't hurt nobody, they just spray a little juice and run away.


.

 

:rofl:
Nice to see you've got a sense of humor. :cheers2:


ZW eace:

 

The Governor's mansion caught fire last night. Burnt slap down to the wheels.

I don't really live in a trailer, I built my own house. It only took 2 weeks to build it, but it took 5 years to save enough banana boxes for the walls. The roof is made from the best steel money can buy, 6 of the best GMC pick up beds the junk yard had.


.

 

I'll be back later, but in regards to waste and demand, since it was in the news today this was the perfect example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8556621.stm

What about the LHC? How would a massive, inter governmental project that requires huge investment in something that might not even work with help from around the world to work? Or waste, in overall current human welfare the LHC by some might be considered a giant waste of resources that has no real demand by most people. Other people would point out the fact even if the science doesn't directly effect nor can be understood by the majority of people it's still one of the greatest undertakings ever to understand our universe more.

 

Personally I dont really like any of them, I cant seem to find a party that fits my views, and doesnt seem to have some kind of hidden agenda. I prefer to just choose voting based on the person and not the party. But even that at times, is hopeless, because they can be wolves in sheeps clothing. Honestly politicians usually just disgust me.

 

Regardless of your political lean, I agree totally with the above.

 

I've been an electronics technician since about 1960, so I've watched technology advance up close and personal. I don't think we have even begun to scratch the surface of the potential of science. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's limitless, but we're a long way from even seeing the end of the tunnel.

I'm with 'em on this. The Swiss have a nice country and everybody gets fed, so why not spend some money on something that can provide important information. It could lead to new energy sources.

Calling it a waste of resources would be premature.


.